Romney's Job Creation

Mitt Romney’s Job Creation Record:

Supporting Companies with Radical Social Policies

Amy L. Contrada

November 7, 2011

Summary: As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney exposed his big government, social liberal approach when he created a new preschool education department, paving the way for taxpayer funding and government control of day care. For the new department’s advisory board, Romney chose a corporate leader who embraced enhanced pro-homosexual, pro-transgender policies in her child care corporation, Bright Horizons Family Solutions. Romney’s firm Bain Capital had funded that company as a start-up, later buying it for $1.3 billion. Romney has always supported non-discrimination policies on the basis of “sexual orientation” in employment and public accommodations, and in the corporations he and/or Bain had a stake in. Romney’s adherence to sexual-radical policies effectively undermines the traditional family values he claims to stand for.

Mitt Romney brags about his record creating jobs as a businessman with Bain Consulting and Bain Capital. His image as a squeaky-clean manager and net creator of jobs has, however, been challenged. [1]

What sort of corporate culture were Romney and Bain supporting (in their client companies that did survive)? Did Romney apply conservative values to businesses that received his support (whether corporate or personal)? Or was he fine with promoting companies that furthered enhanced sexual-radical policies? (Those would include, for example, domestic partner benefits, mandatory diversity training, implicit company speech codes, transgender non-discrimination in hiring, transgender “health” benefits, etc.)

Mitt Romney’s Commitment to Radical “Diversity” Concepts

Romney is on record since 1994 favoring a federal employment non-discrimination act (ENDA), and still insists that he is opposed to any discrimination in employment, housing, or benefits on the basis of “sexual orientation” (which phrase notably remains undefined in the law). [2]

How about discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression”? That phrase ensures that cross-dressers, transsexuals, or “genderqueers” cannot be denied employment or free use of company facilities (restrooms, locker rooms) according to their chosen “gender identity.” It also leads to partial or (eventually) total satisfaction of their costly “health” benefit demands. That would include psychiatric counseling supportive of transgenderism, opposite-sex hormone injections, facial and cranial surgeries, cosmetic procedures such as hair removal, breast augmentation, surgical breast removal, and even “sex-change” genital surgery.

It’s concerning enough if Romney thought such policies a good thing for companies not directly working with children. But what of a child care company whose policies allow transgender and transsexual employees to care for the youngest (preschool) children? Is it fine with Romney for little children to experience a teacher who cross-dresses or who is “transitioning” to the other “gender” before their eyes?

Romney did fund and promote at least one such corporation: Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a large international chain of child care facilities. And as Governor, Romney allowed his “Safe Schools” programs in his Department of Education to run wild, promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism through the public schools and his “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” – even in the early grades. [3]

We can assume that many of GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) employees would be eager to promote their “lifestyle” to little children in their care through mentions of their partner or “spouse,” through propaganda story books about “different kinds of families,” or through discussions on the dangers of stereotyping people. The sexual-radical movement is aware of the importance of reaching the youngest minds. [4]

The New York Times reported that in 2002 while running for Governor, “Mr. Romney explained to the [homosexual Log Cabin Republicans] group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon.” [5]

As a corporate executive in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney would have been well aware of the power held by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which has blanket authority to “investigate and pass upon complaints of unlawful practices” and discrimination in all areas, including public accommodations and employment. It is essentially a shadow court system, slapping fines on companies if someone looks crosswise at a fellow employee – with no real court trial, established legal proceedings, jury, or appeal. [6]

MR: I’ve been an executive of Bain & Co. For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain & Co. It’s an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn’t encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all.

MR: I would have to look and see what Bain & Co. does. My guess would be yes, but I’m sure [sic] exactly what it has for anti-discrimination policies and in all of my years at Bain & Co. I have never heard any person complain about any discrimination based on sexual orientation. I have a number of friends at Bain & Co. who are openly gay and we’ve had a number of tragedies with young men who have contracted AIDS. Some of whom have passed on, and the outpouring of concern and affection for them and for others in similar conditions have existed throughout the company and it has been part of my life’s experience.[7]

Bain has long had a “perfect” corporate environment rating with the sexual radical GLBT organization, Human Rights Campaign. HRC grants a 100% rating only if a company has policies supporting transgender demands(including “health care” benefits for “transitioning” – i.e., sex change procedures, hormone and cosmetic treatments, etc.) – going way beyond gay rights. Romney has served on the Board of Directors for both Staples (a Bain & Co. protégé) – with a 93% rating from HRC – and the Marriott Corporation, with a “perfect” rating. [8] Romney claims not to have discussed “gay issues” on these boards:

Criticized this week for contributing $1 million to a university [Brigham Young University] that has antigay regulations, Mitt Romney explained that he was not a member of the board of Brigham Young University and thus not in a position to advocate a change in university policy. But Romney served on the boards of two companies and one organization – the Boy Scouts – without advancing the gay inclusion that he supports on the campaign trail.… Romney acknowledged that he never discussed gay issues on the boards of either Staples Inc., which does not extend benefits to gay partners, or Marriott Corp., which instituted a domestic partner benefit in 1999, based on a management decision rather than a board vote.”[9]

Another Bain & Co. protégé, Bright Horizons, is a day-care center chain that receives the 100% rating from HRC. This means they agree to employ transgenders/cross-dressers/transsexuals without discrimination, as well as provide their “transitioning” health costs. What about little children exposed to such disturbing perversions? It does not appear this was a problem for Romney or his former company. (Of course, he can always claim ignorance of the policy.) “Bain Capital helped guide hundreds of companies on a successful course, including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority.” [10]

These investments underscore Romney’s commitment (or indifference?) not only to gay rights, but to “transgender rights,” as these sexual-radical theories continue to destabilize our society.

___________________

Romney not only supported companies with sexual-radical employment policies. He apparently has no problem with a company catering to base and perverted clientele. This is evident in his tenure on the Marriott Corporation board. For about 12 years (with a break from 2002-2009), he helped guide the huge hotel chain, resigning only recently in January 2011 as he prepared his second campaign for the Republican nomination.

While at Marriott, Romney failed to object to their lucrative pornographic products (specifically, “adult” movies available in their hotel rooms). [12] And he failed to object to the hotel chain’s catering to homosexual and lesbian “weddings.” Boston area Marriott hotels have long pushed their special “gay” wedding packages. Other Marriott hotels in the U.S. and Europe have long catered to “civil union” ceremonies, if not outright “gay marriages.” (That would have been the case when Romney rejoined the board in 2009.) [13]

Advertising flyer for Boston-Peabody Marriott's “gay & lesbian weddings,” given out by Marriott
at Boston Gay Pride (June 2011). There was similar advertising from other Boston area Marriott hotels.

What else did Marriott allow? In of January 2009, a bizarre transgender conference was held at the Peabody (Boston area) Marriott, complete with very tall men in dresses using the women’s restroom, and lectures on “gender reassignment” surgery. (Other guests at the hotel had not been alerted that the conference would be taking place that weekend.) [14]GQ Magazine covered a “swingers” conference at the New Orleans Marriott in 2007. [15]CNS News reported on a California Marriott’s hosting of a “leather” (sadomasochism) convention in 2002. The hotel manager there said the group had to be allowed because corporate policy was non-discriminatory:

Manhattan Beach [CA] Marriott General Manager Robert Thomas said he's well aware of the nature of Leather Leadership Conference and its attendees, but corporate policy dictates that he must provide full access to his hotel's facilities for "anybody who has the ability to pay for them." Thomas said he's just following his company's non-discriminatory policies. "If we were ever to try to discriminate what type of guests we allow in the hotel, we would have a real situation on our hands," he said. [16]

Many such examples can be found. Yet Mitt Romney rejoined the Marriott board in 2009.

This sort of publicly visible sexual-radical behavior is where Romney’s oft-repeated policy of “no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” leads. Recall that “sexual orientation” is nowhere defined in the law, and likely not in most corporate policies. It can cover sadomasochists, transgender prostitutes, or even a NAMBLA group. Whatever!

Romney’s Close Connection to Bright Horizons

Back to the child care business and Bright Horizons Family Solutions. Its co-founders were a husband and wife team, Roger Brown and Linda Mason. Brown was well known to Romney, having worked under him at Bain Consulting. When Brown and Mason conceived their business plan, they went to Romney:

We pitched our idea to Bain Capital, Bain’s newly formed investment arm. Its founding partner, Mitt Romney, expressed interest, but he felt he needed a second opinion. Romney knew me [Brown] quite well – I had reported to him at Bain [Consulting] – and he wanted reassurance from a more objective investor…. We had our funding commitment in a matter of months.”[17]

Bain likely put up a million or so (the exact amount is not available) to get the enterprise off the ground. Its first center opened in 1987. Bain Capital later bought out the company for approximately $1.3 billion in January 2008. [18]

The typical Cambridge couple: Linda Mason and Roger Brown (Ackerman Institute photo).
They received the Ackerman Institute for the Family award in 2008. The Institute promotes
support for “LGBT families,” and “gender variance” and diversity training in social work.[19]

It goes without saying that Bain Capital would have known the details of Bright Horizons inside and out. That would include its human resource policies. Since Bain had early on achieved its own 100% rating with the radical GLBT advocacy organization, Human Rights Campaign, we know that the Bain team took HRC’s “non-discrimination” guidelines seriously. Romney also noted Bain’s commitment to that cause in his 1994 interview with Boston’s homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows. [20]

From Bright Horizon’s current website:

Bright Horizons Family Solutions (www.brighthorizons.com) is the world’s leading provider of employer-sponsored child care, early education and work/life solutions. Bright Horizons serves more than 800 clients across the U.S., Europe, and Canada, with programs including child care and early education, back-up care, elder care and college counseling.

The company continues to receive high-profile coverage in the establishment media. In November 2011, the Boston Globe devoted a whole article to it. For the second year in a row, the Globe awarded it first place (in the “large employers” category) in its “Top Places to Work” survey:

[CEO Dave] Lissy said he can get more out of people when they feel inspired and engaged. “It allows people, when they pull into the parking lot, to not leave behind half of who they are,’’ he said, adding that if employees don’t feel they can be themselves at work, “you as an employer aren’t getting the full contribution of that person.’’ [21]

What Does GLBT “Non-Discrimination” Actually Mean?

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is not only about GLBT non-discrimination in employment. It is a powerful voice promoting “gay marriage” (which Romney says he opposes), “hate crimes” legislation, GLBT issues in the schools, national “coming-out day” (including in schools), etc. HRC is openly involved in electoral politics and lobbying at all levels.

Typical of leftist activism, HRC knows how to work incrementally toward its goals. One year they demand “civil unions,” the next they demand full-fledged “gay marriage.” One year they push equality for “gays and lesbians,” the next it’s bumped up to “transgender” equality. One year they advocate simply non-discrimination in hiring, the next they demand radical “transgender health” benefits, “philanthropy” or “marketing” for their GLBT causes.

Romney and many corporate managers are either blind to this strategy, or have no problem with it. They are eager to please HRC and get their 100% ratings.

In 2005, HRC gave Bright Horizons an 86% rating on its “Corporate Equality Index” (CEI). [22] The only area where the HRC said the child care company fell short was in “marketing, sponsorship or philanthropy” for GLBT causes. But the company had corrected that the next year, and achieved a “perfect” CEI score of 100% in 2006. [23]

Note that prior to 2006, HRC did refer to “GLBT” employees in its index list of employment policies scored. In other words, transgender employees were included even before 2006. But HRC wanted to make crystal clear the importance of transgender equality, stating in its 2005 CEI report:

The most significant policy gain in 2005 was the addition of “gender identity or expression” in corporate non-discrimination policies. … As transgender employees become more visible at all levels of employment, companies are quickly recognizing the impact that prohibiting transgender discrimination has on the bottom line. (p. 2)

Further, HRC announced in its 2005 CEI report that its new rankings criteria for 2006 would include this:

II. Transgender equality and wellness benefits

A. The CEI will allot points to companies that have instituted written gender transition guidelines documenting supportive company policy on issues pertinent to a workplace gender transition OR provide a diversity training curricula that is inclusive of gender identity and expression issues in the workplace

B. The CEI will allot points to companies that have at least one company-sponsored plan where at least one of these benefits are also available to transgender employees as part of a medically supervised treatment plan:

So from 2006 on, HRC emphasized transgender issues in its scoring with the code words, “gender expression or gender identity”:

1. The company will prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender expression or gender identity as part of its written employment policy statement.

2. The company will disseminate its written employment policy statement company-wide.

3. The company will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of any employee’s actual or perceived health condition, status or disability.

4. The company will offer equal health insurance and other benefits to employees to cover their domestic partners regardless of the employee’s marital status, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity.

5. The company will include discussions of sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity as part of its official employee diversity and sensitivity training communications…. (p. 13)

Thus, to move up to their 100% HRC score in 2006, Bright Horizons not only had to improve its “marketing, sponsorship or philanthropy” related to GLBT issues, it also had to satisfy specific new demands for transgender, transsexual, and genderqueer employees.

Beyond the shared burden of costly health care for GLBT individuals (including bizarre transgender treatments and intense counseling needs), employees will be subject to diversity and sensitivity training sessions. For example, a 6’3”man in a dress would have to be addressed as “she” (if that was the “gender identity” he chose), or an employee who dared to recognize reality (and called the male cross-dresser “he”) would be disciplined for discrimination. The “male-to-female” cross-dresser had to be allowed to use the women’s restroom without anyone else complaining, or the complainer would be subject to company reprimand. We’ve already seen many cases where, thanks to sexual-orientation non-discrimination policies, speaking out against “gay marriage” or “civil unions” in the workplace is verboten. All of this amounts to a speech code: a denial of one’s First Amendment rights.

And that’s all fine with Mitt Romney.

Bright Horizons Commitment to “Non-Discrimination”

Here is Bright Horizon’s non-discrimination policy as it now appears on its website:

Commitment to Diversity

The Bright Horizons community is a vibrant tapestry made of children, families, and employees who represent many different cultures, backgrounds, and experiences. We strive to create a culture that values and includes every individual and celebrates unique differences. We commit to:

Act deliberately to embrace diversity at all levels of the organization and encourage inclusion and respect by providing continuing diversity education and ongoing support to our employees.

Celebrate and value all people by expanding our understanding of diversity to include all races, cultures, religions, abilities, sexual orientations, ages, family structures, genders, ethnicities, economic statuses and appearances.

Help our clients around the world who have increasingly diverse workforces achieve their business objectives and have our centers represent and honor the diversity of the children and families whom we serve. [24] [emphasis added]

Parse those words:

“Embrace diversity at all levels” – even those employees working with little children. Why “genders” in the plural rather than the singular? (Normal usage would be “no discrimination on the basis of gender.” Or in antiquated usage, “sex.”) And what might “appearances” include? Not just ethnicity, race, weight, unattractiveness, piercings, or tattoos … but cross-dressing?

Of course, the term “sexual orientation” is undefined in the law, so could include just about anything you might imagine. Note that here it’s in the plural. So they’re not just allowing for “gay, lesbian, bisexual,” but leaving the door open. That’s what “expanding our understanding of diversity” means. “Family structures” could apply not just to a single mother, for instance, but to same-sex “civil unions,” “gay marriages,” or maybe even “poly” families. So, no comments allowed that disagree with “gay marriage” at Bright Horizons!

Possibly most disturbing is the phrase, “diversity of the children … we serve.” Get ready for transgender preschoolers!

The online statement may not be identical to their corporate legal documents. It seems to be worded to allow for all possibilities. But they don’t want to give away too much to the innocent parent searching online. (What parent would not think positively about a “vibrant tapestry,” or not want the “unique differences” of his or her own child to be appreciated?)

Romney’s Big-Government Approach and Social Liberal Sentiments Come Together

In July [2004], the state legislature unanimously passes, and Governor Mitt Romney signs, a law establishing the foundation for a system of high-quality early education and care for all through the creation of an independent board and consolidated Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), the first in the nation. [25]

The Massachusetts FY06 budget would include $20 million for Governor Romney’s EEC initiatives.

Thus, Romney proudly laid the foundation for government-run (and eventually mandated?) preschool education. In other words, government-run day care.

Romney sought out Bright Horizons’ co-founder and director Linda Mason as an advisor to help him design his early childhood government education. In March 2005, just as Mason’s company was working to improve its HRC score, Romney named her to be one of his EEC’s nine original board members. [26] The Bain Capital connection confirms that he would have known the details of her leadership on the cutting edge of child care practices. That included her commitment to fight “GLBT discrimination” evident in the company’s embrace of HRC standards.

Romney also included his Commissioner of Education, David Driscoll, on the EEC board. Driscoll had been a steadfast promoter of GLBT indoctrination in the schools through several administrations. [27] He fully supported the “Safe Schools” indoctrination programs designed by Kevin Jennings for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and Department of Education, and had even participated in the 2001 Youth Pride event. [28]

Massachusetts Education Commissioner David Driscoll welcoming students to 2001 “gay” Youth Pride.
Governor Romney kept him on as Commissioner, also appointing him to his new Department of
Early Education and Care in 2005. (Massachusetts News photo)

And what was the goal of those who had pushed to establish Romney’s new EEC bureaucracy (and who had drafted the bill)? “Publicly funded, high-quality pre-k education and full-day public school kindergarten available to every Massachusetts child.” [29]

What sorts of ideas and “social skills” would these little minds absorb in their full-day kindergarten or earlier schooling? How long before the “voluntary” pre-K programs became mandatory?

While in 2004 he had signed into law his new department which would advocate for and administer government pre-K programs, by August 2006 Romney vetoed the bill that would have funded and implemented those programs. (It was too late in the session for the Legislature to override his veto.) Despite his veto, he went along with funding the pilot program (at $4.6 million). And EEC’s overall funding for FY07 was still $47 million. [30]

Why did Romney veto the bill to fund the pre-K programs? By 2006, he was working hard to craft a conservative profile for his upcoming campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination. But in explaining his veto, note that Romney did not say the idea of state-run pre-K programs was bad, just that he was concerned about the cost and that results of a pilot program were needed first:

Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would have moved Massachusetts closer to universal pre-kindergarten, saying the program could end up costing taxpayers as much as $1 billion a year. The bill would have created a statewide pre-kindergarten program defined as "voluntary, universally accessible early education and care programs and services for preschool-aged children." Romney said the state should instead wait to see the results of a smaller $4.6 million pre-kindergarten test program before embarking on the more ambitious statewide initiative. "Before we create an expensive new burden on Massachusetts taxpayers, one that could lead to future tax increases, we ought to await the results of the pilot program, particularly as it relates to the cost of a large scale operation," Romney said. [31]

It was only about cost and efficiency. But Romney had not seem concerned about the costs to taxpayers when he supported state-funded all-day kindergarten.

Or when he established his John and Abigail Adams scholarship program, offering free tuition at any state college to all graduates earning top scores on the state’s MCAS (high-school tenth-grade) achievement test.[32] Over 14,000 students qualified in 2006, more than 16,000 in 2007, and 18,261 by 2012.

While the tuition costs at the state schools are fairly low (and the fees are what really add up), the state still spent a lot on these scholarships, with Romney budgeting over $4.3 million for its first year (FY05). Romney said, “This Adams Scholarship Program will cost about $50 million a year by year four. And it's worth every dime.” [33]One newspaper reported the Governor was asking for $85 million to cover the scholarships in FY07. [34]

These merit scholarships were in addition to the $90 million a year the state put toward scholarships based on need. And, “In 2007, Governor Romney continued his push for a merit based scholarship similar to the Adams scholarship on a national level.” [35]

Early in his term, Romney also pushed a hundred school renovation and building projects. In 2005, he proposed that 500,000 students get laptops from the state (at a cost of $54 million). [36] He also put in place a mandatory “parental prep” plan for parents of young children in under-performing school district. Romney said,

… parents of children in our troubled schools need to get more involved. I propose to establish a mandatory parent preparation course to teach parents how they can support their child in school and how they can foster the discipline and hard work that are the cornerstone of education…. the state will fund full day kindergarten in every one of these districts that doesn't have it.[37]

Romney’s successor as Governor, Deval Patrick, supported the pre-K concept during his 2006 campaign, but to date his programs have stalled with his “Education Readiness Project.” [38] Romney’s new preschool bureaucracy, the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), currently licenses child care facilities, promotes Head Start programs, and pushes other nebulous enterprises such as the “Brain Building in Progress” program.[39] But it’s waiting in the wings for government day care (aka pre-K education).

Romney Appointed Bright Horizons Co-Founder and Director to His Early Education & Care Department

As noted, when Governor Romney created his new bureaucracy, the Department of Early Education and Care, he appointed Linda Mason to serve on EEC’s advisory board.

Mason has written columns for Huffington Post and Slate. She has been on the board of the Boston Globe. [40] In her charitable work, she is the Chair of Mercy Corps (“a $300 million international relief and development agency headquartered in the US”), and Chair of the Africa Committee of the Human Rights Watch. She is also a Trustee of Yale University and Chair of the Yale School of Management Advisory Board. [41]

Her appointment by Romney to the EEC board likely helped solidify Bright Horizons’ prestige in the business community.

Her company’s squeaky-clean image was tarnished, however, by child abuse cases at their center in Lexington, Massachusetts in 2006. Ironically, the very state bureaucracy she was a part of, Early Child Education and Care, brought the charges and conducted the investigation. The Boston Herald reported:

Saying she is troubled by allegations of child abuse at her Lexington day-care center, the founder and chairwoman of Bright Horizons Family Solutions said last week she would stay put as a member of the state board overseeing regulators who issued harsh sanctions against the facility.

Linda Mason, who was appointed to the nine-member Early Education and Care Board by Gov. Mitt Romney as its child-care representative in March 2005, said her [advisory] panel had no role in the state sanctions issued to Bright Horizons Lexington on Wednesday.

“I take this very, very seriously,” Mason said. “I think the EEC is doing exactly what it needs to do.”

In a 12-page sanction from the state Department of Early Education and Care, child-care regulators wrote that the Lexington Bright Horizons “has been cited for repeatedly violating child-care health and safety regulations, including the physical abuse of infants and toddlers.” Among the allegations of children getting slapped, infants being “physically and verbally abused” and violent threats by staffers were these… [42]

Yet Mason remained on Gov. Romney’s EEC board. No conflict of interest?

“Diversity” Policies in Child Care Settings? Conservative Values?

Why are Bright Horizons’ diversity policies significant?

It is not just about supporting transgender (or homosexual activist) employees in the management offices. It’s about homosexual activists and transgender persons in the child care centers who could use their positions to indoctrinate little minds with story books such as Who’s In a Family?, Daddy’s Roommate, And Tango Makes Three, King & King, and Heather Has Two Mommies. And yes, there are transgender-themed books for little ones, such as My Princess Boy.

Doesn’t Mitt Romney say over and over that traditional marriage must be preserved because every child deserves a mom and a dad? Does he really mean that? His child-care job creation record does not support that claim. Employees at Bright Horizons cannot even speak openly about their belief in traditional marriage.

What about the children? Is Romney OK with toddlers being turned into GLBT “allies”? Is he ready for toddler GLBT “pride”? Can toddlers now “come out” as transgender? Bright Horizons, and the jobs they created with Romney’s and Bain Capital’s help, is certainly heading in that direction.

And Romney was proud to serve on Marriott Hotels’ Board of Directors, with their revenue-producing conferences by leather/sadomasochist groups, swingers, transgenders, and wedding celebrations for same-sex couples. And their shameless peddling of pornographic movies. What does that say about his commitment to traditional moral values?

Mitt Romney is no conservative. He seems to be concerned only with his bottom line.

But what separates Romney’s [health care] plan from Obama’s—and gives some clues about his potential presidency—is its almost-accidental origin. Romney did not begin with a philosophical quest to improve American health care. He began with the idea of himself as a problem solver and asked those around him for a problem that he might usefully solve. I remembered, when I was told this story, an anecdote I’d heard from a former political staffer of Romney’s. On even basic philosophical questions like abortion, the staffer said, Romney did not try to resolve the question in the abstract, as a matter of principle, and would consider instead various hypothetical cases—for instance, a late-term abortion—and build from them a politics. The line that Romney is a flip-flopper may vastly understate the depth of the condition.

It is arresting to imagine a Romney White House, inevitably filled with as many former Bain colleagues as each of his other public ventures have been: The ­PowerPoints, the 80-20 jargon, the clinical separation of decision-making from ideology, the detachment of those decisions from moral consequence, a persistent blind spot for people as people. It would represent the final ascension of a perfectly American type, one that has already remade the culture of business. [emphasis added]

A prominent employment law firm wrote in 1999: “MCAD has changed its focus. It no longer views itself as merely a quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates discrimination claims, but rather as an active enforcement agency intent upon the elimination of all unlawful discrimination” Another law firm’s Employment Law Advisor outlines MCAD procedures, confirming that the burdens on the Massachusetts business community are growing: … “The dangers to employers involved in MCAD cases remain significant – although the MCAD cannot impose punitive damages, it has historically awarded large amounts of emotional distress damages to prevailing complainants.” … This is truly government by unaccountable tribunal.

Manhattan Beach Marriott General Manager Robert Thomas said he's well aware of the nature of Leather Leadership Conference and its attendees, but corporate policy dictates that he must provide full access to his hotel's facilities for "anybody who has the ability to pay for them." Thomas said he's just following his company's non-discriminatory policies. "If we were ever to try to discriminate what type of guests we allow in the hotel, we would have a real situation on our hands," he said.

The Globe's Top Places to Work survey honors employers who care for their most valuable resource: The people who work for them. Those people - nearly 75,000 employees of the organizations ranked here - told us that their employers pay well, offer progressive benefits and creative perks, allow the flexibility needed to have good lives both at work and at home, embrace the diverse backgrounds of their employees, and offer a promising future to all of their workers. [emphasis added]

In addition to the criteria that already comprise the CEI, the following indicators will be added to the rating system in 2006.

I. Equal benefits

A. The CEI will measure parity of domestic partner benefits. When an employer provides health insurance coverage to employees’ heterosexual spouses, points will be allotted if it provides same-sex domestic partners with equal:

[28]Driscoll appeared just before a vulgar presentation by a radical feminist theater troupe which used unbelievably vulgar language to whip the teens into a sexual frenzy. See Chapter IV in my book, Mitt Romney’s Deception.

The Early Education for All (EEA) Campaign, an initiative of Strategies for Children, Inc. (SFC), was launched in the summer of 2000 to address the pressing need for high-quality early education in Massachusetts. The campaign is a coalition of leaders from business, early education and care, labor, higher education, religion, healthcare, K-12, and philanthropy, working in partnership with parents, grassroots leaders, and state policymakers to make publicly funded, high-quality pre-k education and full-day public school kindergarten available to every Massachusetts child.